Re: Newbie Question about addressing impacts

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

Tony Li wrote:
> > > Years ago, we rejected (a) on the grounds that it would change IPv6
> >
> >
> > Well, my understanding is that this is still a valid approach to the 
> > problem, and i didn't get the feeling that we have rejected it (at 
> > least since i am in this wg), so, may i ask why did you reject this 
> > approach?
>
>
>
> Umm.... as I alluded "we" (not I ;-) rejected this approach because 
> there are existing
> IPv6 host implementations.  Those would have to be 'revised' to support 
> this model.
> At the time, the WG felt that this was unacceptable.

In my biased opinion, this is why goals 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 in RFC 3582 were
written *exactly* as they are. And they are part of the WG consensus, and
they do *not* exclude host and router modifications.

    Brian